10-03-2003 23:53									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

OK now we are getting into a bit on the Phil Hendrie show here.

Just because his wife was killed so violently, it makes it OK for him to rape a 13 year old?

And even though I don't think Gangs of New York if flawless, I do think it deserves to win.

Gangs had problems with american actord doing an irish accent. Leo didn't come off as a tough guy so well. I did beleive him as a thief, just not as an ass-kicker. That ship firing scene at the end seemed wrong. And the last 10 minutes were not explained so well. I mentioned all of this in the gangs of new york thread a while back.

But visually, this movie is flawless. He does a fantastic job of setting you in this world.

And it had lots of violence which I like .

	11-03-2003 00:24									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Two Towers was worse than FOTR and really shouldn't win this year; I'm mostly glad it got nominated because it was still pretty good and should keep Return of the King's chances reasonable, despite the Academy's dislike of sequels. (I would rather have had FOTR win last year, but ABM was a good movie, so I don't hold much grudge). And unlike some have said, I liked The Hours quite a bit and would be perfectly happy with that winning Best Picture.

	11-03-2003 00:32									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

ABM was a terrible movie, the worst Russell Crowe has ever made (and he's made some stinkers - Gladiator being notable). I don't believe I've ever seen a movie that has been able to deal adequately with genius without either being tedious or being sucked into ridiculous sentimentality and simplification.

LOTR will get screwed no matter what because it is a movie made in open defiance of the Hollywood system. Peter Jackson basically said to New Line, "Give me the money, I'm going back home to make the movie with whoever I like (read: washed up New Zealand soap actors) and stay the hell out of my way."

No one who has never seen the New Zealand soap "Shortland Street" can ever really appreciate LOTR anyway. I got funny looks in the theatre because I was the only one laughing when Nurse Guy aka Craig Parker (a notoriously gay NZ actor) appeared as an elf - but all the other Kiwis got the joke.

Actually, LOTR is not even Jackson's best film - "Meet the Feebles" is. After all who can better a porno version of the Muppet Show which ends with a hippo committing a machine gun massacre accompanied by a song entitled "Sodomy"?

	11-03-2003 00:36									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

To me, it is close between Pianist and Gangs. Chicago is a film I did not like, but it was well done and could win. I was confused by LoTR. I really did not like the Hours.

I voted for Pianist. The film once again reminded us of the brutality of the Nazi's. However, there were exceptions - see the film.

	11-03-2003 02:37									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: ABM was a terrible movie, the worst Russell Crowe has ever made (and he's made some stinkers - Gladiator being notable).

I liked BOTH of those .

Loved ABM, and Gladiator was so much fun .

	13-03-2003 10:17									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Seen them all. Chicago will win. Nascimento de Uma Banana from Brazil will win best Foreign Film.

	13-03-2003 13:44									#37
	Got spare money?

I've only seen LoTR2 and Chicago. Unlike the conventional "wisdom" here, I thought the second LoTR film was better. Perhaps that is because I'm not a LoTR geek, have never read the books, and so I'm seeing it as a movie rather than some failed attempt to live up to the books. In any event, I thought the pacing, flow, and the fewer stories portayed all worked in favor of this film over the first.

Chicago was ok. I like the Fosse type rythmic editing, and the pacing of the first half of the film was fantastic. But the film dragged, and combined with the lack of a really kick a$$ performance (IMO) it dropped the movie down to the worth seeing but not raving about level. I'd rather watch All That Jazz anyday.

I just don't see that many movies these days, and when I do see them I'm rarely impressed. We seem to be in a drought of mediocrity. It was only a few years ago that there were a lot of interesting films produced. I loved Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, Fight Club etc. Bring back that sort of fare, and I'll return to the theatre to see it.

I didn't vote as I haven't seen most of the movies nominated.

Btw, Polanski deserved some jail time for plying a 13 year old girl with drugs and alchohol and sleeping with her. I can forgive someone for sleeping with a 17 or 18 year old girl. I can even forgive someone for being attracted to a 13 year old girl who looks old for her age. But that's a far cry from preying on someone who is developmentally still a child. He's fvcked up, and even though he has good reason to be, he is still responsible for getting a grip on himself. Jail is for people who can't do that.

	13-03-2003 17:20									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Unlike the conventional "wisdom" here, I thought the second LoTR film was better. Perhaps that is because I'm not a LoTR geek, have never read the books, and so I'm seeing it as a movie rather than some failed attempt to live up to the books. In any event, I thought the pacing, flow, and the fewer stories portayed all worked in favor of this film over the first.

I completely agree- although I found the second film disjointed and unfocused, with some rather haphazard plot turns, the mere fact that it was decently paced made it a much more enjoyable viewing experience than the first.

Oh, and although I have read the books, I'm not a LoTR geek either, mainly 'cause I thought they were a bit crap, really.